[LandXML] Re: DesignCrossSectSurf in LandXML 1.1

From: "Nathan Crews" <nathan.crews@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

To: <danijel.rebolj@xxxxxxxxx>, <landxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:59:36 -0400

Dr. Rebolj,
You make very good points as usual and I thank you for your contributions to
the new 3D road model.
For item #1, the optional volume and area attributes are indeed redundant, but
are provided for XSLT reporting which is a very poor computational environment.
A convenience for design reports since LandXML is now used a great deal for
that purpose. Design software should import the geometry and calculate the area
and volumes independent of the attribute values.
For item #2, closedArea attribute name makes more sense since it is hard to
have an "open" volume. An error I will correct.
For item #3, several software vendors do use it and until we are comfortable
with the new 3D road model in LandXML-1.1, I would suggest keeping until all
vendors have a chance to upgrade to the 1.1 specification.
For item#4, We have held off on voting to ratify LandXML-1.1 until more sample
files can be produced and reviewed by all. I should have many new 1.1 samples
(with the new 3D road model) within the next month or so. Once we settle on the
1.1 schema we can update the SDK to support it.
Best Regards,
Nathan Crews
www.landxml.org
-----Original Message-----
From: landxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Danijel Rebolj
Sent: Mon 9/19/2005 6:34 AM
To: landxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Podbreznik Peter'; DuÅan Zalar
Subject: [LandXML] DesignCrossSectSurf in LandXML 1.1
Dear LandXML community,
Since we are strongly interested in (3D) object oriented road model,
we're very pleased with the LandXML 1.1 proposal. Already in 2002 we have
proposed to have the definitions of cross section elements in CrossSect rather
then in the GradeModel, where they've landed after lots of discussions. And now
we've got the DesignCrossSectSurfs in CrossSect! Great!
In general we find the new DesignCrossSectSurfs element very good, but
there are still some minor questions and proposals:
1. area and volume of DesignCrossSectSurf can be easily
calculated. To have them as attributes can be a source of inconsistency. Is it
neccesseary to have them?
2. Wouldn't it be more consistent to have an attribute named
closedArea in DesignCrossSectSurf instead of closedVolume? (But I agree,
closedVolume gives a better idea of the meaning of the DesignCrossSectSurf
element.)
3. Probably nobody has used ZoneCrossSectStructure in GradeModel,
therefore we suggest to delete it from Zone in 1.1. Otherwise it will only lead
to confusion and would decrease the clearness of the schema. Our opinion is we
should wipe out obsolete elements. Imagine how might the 8.7 schema look like
otherwise.
4. What is the schedule plan for 1.1 launching? (including 1.1 sdk)
Thanks to the developer team for the efforts and best regards to all
Danijel Rebolj
______________________________________
Dr. Danijel Rebolj
Professor of Construction and transportation informatics
Vice-dean, Head of the Construction IT Centre
University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering
Smetanova 17, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia
e_mail: Danijel.Rebolj@xxxxxxxxx, http://fg.uni-mb.si/
<http://fg.uni-mb.si/>
Tel. : +386 2 229-4381, Fax.: +386 2 252-4179